lubinas
-6
9
lubinas has not written any posts yet.
lubinas has not written any posts yet.
Let's say the entire biography of the universe has already been written. An unending, near infinitely granular chain of cause and effect, extending forward in a single direction: time. For a model of this, you could use boxes representing choices (we'll get to that later) and potentially multiple (again, later) arrows between boxes in such a way that an arrow from A to B means A is the cause of B, plus an axiom that there is no way to go back, meaning if there is a path from A to B there is not a path from B to A. (This is pretty much the definition of a branch in a... (read 352 more words →)
The preceding sentence gives an intensional definition of "extensional definition", which makes it an extensional example of "intensional definition".
This is really elegant. Worth taking a beat to digest
The fallacy of Proving Too Much is when you challenge an argument because, in addition to proving its intended conclusion, it also proves obviously false conclusions. For example, if someone says “You can’t be an atheist, because it’s impossible to disprove the existence of God”, you can answer “That argument proves too much. If we accept it, we must also accept that you can’t disbelieve in Bigfoot, since it’s impossible to disprove his existence as well.”
Wow, I've been looking for a name for this thing for sooo long. Thanks so much. The phrasing here is a bit ambiguous, and can lead to confusion I think.
From the whole of the text, it seems... (read more)
There is a big leap between there are no X, so Y and there are no useful X (useful meaning local homeomorphisms), so Y, though. Also, local homeomorphism seem too strong a standard to set. But sure, I kind of agree on this. So let's forget about injection. Orthogonal projections seem to be very useful under many standards, albeit lossy. I'm not confident that there are no akin, useful equivalence classes in A (joint probability distributions) that can be nicely map to B (causal diagrams). Either way, the conclusion
This means the first causal structure is falsifiable; there's survey data we can get which would lead us to reject it as a hypothesis
can't be entailed from the above alone.
Note: my model of this is just balls in , so elements might not hold the same accidental properties as the ones in A and B, (if so, please explain :) ) but my underlying issue is with the actual structure of the argument.
By the pigeonhole principle (you can't fit 3 pigeons into 2 pigeonholes) there must be some joint probability distributions which cannot be represented in the first causal structure
Although this is a valid interpretation of the Pigeonhole Principle (PP) for some particular one-to-one cases, I think it misses the main point of it as relates to this particular example. You absolutely can fit 3 Pigeons into 2 Pigeonholes, and the standard (to my knowledge) intended takeaway from the PP is that you are gonna have to, if you want your pigeons holed. There might just not be a cute way to do it.
The idea being that in finite sets and with there is no injective from to (you... (read 487 more words →)
Yup, hadn't read that. Definitely relevant. Thanks!
That's actually a fair point, although I'm not sure how much it takes away from the value of the metaphor.It looks to me it can be easily circumvented while mantaining the general idea.
... (read more)For many people, “jelly beans” live in a bucket that is Very Good! The bucket has labels like “delicious” and “yes, please!” and “mmmmmmmmmmm” and
.
“Bug secretions,” on the other hand, live in a bucket that, for many people, is Very Bad[3]. Its labels are things like “blecchh” and “gross” and “definitely do not put this inside your body in any way, shape, or form.”
When buckets collide—when things that people thought were in one bucket turn out to be in another, or when two buckets that people thought were different turn out to be the same bucket—people do not usually react with slow, thoughtful deliberation. They usually do not think to themselves “huh!
Yeah, that might be me not factoring my own environment out of it as much as I thought. In my case, there has been a lot of recrimination about failure of character, about taking something from everyone else without enough consideration as to how it would cause them harm, implicitly stating that an offense has been incurred. Its not the main reaction, but definitely more common than I would have expected. As to
it might very well be the case, but sufficient context and trust has been reached to meaningfully engage... (read more)